HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Budget 2016) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 November 2016.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (17:23): I thank honourable members who have made a contribution, and look forward to this bill being dealt with expeditiously through its remaining stages. I now put on record some answers to questions asked by honourable members during their second reading contributions.

The Hon. Rob Lucas asked a number of questions on the wagering tax around consultation, including whether other jurisdictions are considering the introduction of a similar tax, changes requested by industry, and the government's response to these requests. I am advised that the Treasurer has had discussions with several of his counterparts in other Australian jurisdictions in regard to South Australia's proposed place of consumption tax on wagering. He has recommended that consideration be given to introducing such a tax in their own jurisdictions, given that the place of consumption tax is appropriate and is suited to the national wagering industry that we have in Australia.

This bill contains measures that will facilitate a nationally consistent approach should other jurisdictions join South Australia in implementing a place of consumption tax on wagering. The bill amends the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 to enable the Treasurer to enter into agreements with other Australian jurisdictions for cooperative arrangements relating to taxes, penalties and interest imposed on betting operations carried out in multiple jurisdictions.

I am advised that the Treasurer and government officials have met with a number of wagering operators and industry representatives to discuss the place-of-consumption wagering tax. A wagering tax administration working group has also been set up to discuss the administrative arrangements for the new wagering tax. The group is chaired by the Commissioner of State Taxation who will be responsible for the administration of the tax. Wagering operators and relevant industry representatives have been invited to be part of the working group.

The group has been established to work with the wagering industry to develop a tax collection and reporting system that captures the information required to effectively administer the wagering tax while minimising the compliance burden on industry. It will also give the wagering industry input into the design of administrative arrangements and any required finetuning of the definition of net state wagering revenue to be done by way of regulation. The working group had its first meeting, I am advised, on 26 September.

This bill also includes amendments to the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 to allow for the introduction of a new limited major betting operations licence class. The new limited licence class allows wagering operators to establish a telephone and/or internet-based wagering service in South Australia. The current drafting of the bill contains a requirement that the minister must be satisfied that the holder of a limited licence has substantial business assets and infrastructure located in South Australia.

The South Australian government is moving an amendment to remove this requirement. This will reduce the compliance burden and obligations placed on betting operators who may want to take up a proposed limited licence. It is uncertain how many betting operators will seek a South Australian limited licence. Existing cost recovery provisions in the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 allow for the recovery of costs associated with the regulation of any additional licensees.

The Hon. John Darley sought information on how the contribution to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund was determined and how this compares with other contributions to the fund. I am advised that the proposed $500,000 annual contribution to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund from wagering tax revenue was determined so as to be largely consistent with the relative annual contributions made by other gambling operators.

In 2015-16, there was $6.46 million available in the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund for the provision of gambling help services. The South Australian government contributed $3.845 million, which is fixed under section 72A(4) of the Gaming Machines Act 1992. The Adelaide Casino contributed $317,000 to the fund. This contribution is required under the variation agreement to the Approved Licensing Agreement (Adelaide Casino) and is indexed annually by CPI. The Australian Hotels Association (SA) and Clubs SA contributed $2 million to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund, collected via the monitoring fee paid to the Independent Gaming Corporation. Further contributions of around $300,000 were also made to the fund in 2015-16.

The Hon. Tammy Franks has asked for further information around how it will be ensured that the wagering tax applies to bets placed from different sources. I am advised that, in order to take bets from customers located in South Australia, the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 requires that betting operators must either be licensed in South Australia, or be licensed in another Australian jurisdiction and then authorised to take bets in South Australia.

There are a number of obligations placed on betting operators licensed or authorised to take bets in South Australia. These include the requirement to lodge an annual return with the Independent Gambling Authority, which includes financial information such as their quarterly turnover and net wagering revenue from South Australian customers in the previous financial year. The proposed wagering tax applies equally to all betting operators who take bets from persons located in South Australia.

The bill also amends the Taxation Administration Act 1996 to make the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 a taxation law. The Taxation Administration Act 1996 includes provisions to deter any artificial, blatant or contrived schemes to reduce or avoid liability for tax. It also gives the Commissioner of State Taxation various investigative functions and powers related to the administration or enforcement of taxation laws.

In addition, the bill contains amendments to the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 that will allow the Independent Gambling Authority to suspend a betting licence or prohibit an authorised interstate betting operator from conducting betting operations in South Australia if it has contravened or failed to comply with a provision in the act. This would include refusing to pay any tax they may be liable for.

In relation to the introduction of school fees for dependents of 457 visa holders, the Hon. Rob Lucas has asked that I put on public record the answers which were previously supplied to him by the department regarding the proposed fee structure. I have been advised the fees will be published through a Gazette notice and on the DECD website.

The fees will be gazetted to apply to families who newly arrive in South Australia from January 2017 and all student dependants of 457 visa workers from the beginning of 2018. It is intended the fee for 2017 will be $5,100 per year for primary students and $6,100 per year for secondary students. There is no fee for preschool students. There is a 10 per cent reduction in the fee for the second child and all subsequent children from the same family, with the full fee charged to the eldest child at a government school.

The fee payable is reduced through the application of a means test, for which a formula is applied. No fee is payable if the annual family income is $57,000 or less, rounded down to the nearest whole thousand dollars. Family income is gross income of the 457 visa worker and spouse or partner, including salary sacrifice and overtime amounts.

The maximum fee is not payable until family income reaches $77,000 per year where there is only one child at a government school. The income at which the maximum fee is payable increases by $10,000 for each additional child. For example, a family with four children at government schools would not pay maximum fees until family income reaches $107,000 per year. Where the family income is more than $57,000 but less than the income at which the maximum fee is payable, given the number of children attending a government school, a percentage of the full fee is payable.

Where the family has one child in school, the percentage of the maximum fee payable increases by 5 per cent for each additional $1,000 of income above $57,000. Where there are two children in school, the percentage of the maximum fee payable increases by 3.3 per cent for each additional $1,000 of income above $57,000. Where there are three children, the percentage increase is 2.5 per cent for each additional $1,000 of income above $57,000, and 2 per cent for four children.

I have been advised that, as at the end of October, approximately 20 queries have been received from the public since the proposal to introduce school fees for dependants of 457 visa holders was announced in March 2016. Information on the proposal has been made available through the DECD website.

One of the queries received was on behalf of workers at the Bordertown abattoir. Officers from DECD provided a response to their queries, which included a calculation of the specific amounts that would be payable, given the circumstances of four specific families. Officers from DECD also offered to meet with the management of the abattoir or with workers likely to be affected to discuss their concerns. However, once the case study calculations were provided, management and workers did not seek additional information from the department.

Given that my voice is failing, I wonder whether I could seek to have the remaining 19 pages of my second reading reply incorporated into Hansard without my needing to read them?

Leave granted.

I will explain the case studies as they were provided to the abattoir workers.

The first case study I am advised involved a family with an annual income of $58,000 and 4 children, 2 in secondary school and 2 in primary school. Total school fees payable in this instance are $415.40, which is 2 per cent of the maximum fee payable if there was no means test.

The second case study I am advised involved a family with an annual income of $60,000 and 3 children who were all in primary school. Total school fees payable in this instance are $1,071, which is 7.5 per cent of the maximum fee payable if there was no means test.

The third case study I am advised involved a family with an annual income of $65,000 and 2 children in primary school and 1 in secondary school. Total school fees payable are $3,056, which is 20 per cent of the maximum fee payable if there was no means test.

The final case study I am advised involved a family with an annual income of $70,000 and 2 children in secondary school and 2 in primary school. Total school fees payable are $5,400, which is 26 per cent of the maximum fee payable if there was no means test.

A similar query was also received on behalf of 457 workers at the abattoir in Murray Bridge. I have been advised that DECD provided advice, similar to what was supplied to the workers in Bordertown. The workers in Murray Bridge have not sought any further information on the proposed fees.

During a briefing with DECD officials, the Opposition also sought advice regarding the breakdown of 457 Visa workers in South Australia. I have been advised that statistics provided by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection show that a total of 1,530 457 Visas were granted in South Australia in 2014-15. 170 of those were government employees, with 160 being employed by the Government of South Australia. Updated information from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection shows that in 2015-16 there were 1,160 457 Visas granted with 170 (approximately 14.7 per cent) employed by the Government of South Australia and 990 employed by the non­government sector. I have been advised that at this time, the number of 457 Visa holders currently working in SA Health is not known to DECD.

The Hon Kelly Vincent queried the costs and benefits of the new school fees, and whether it is known how many 457 Visa holders have children of school age.

The Government has carefully considered the costs and benefits of the scheme, and is confident that the benefits far exceed the costs. The benefits include the greater investment in early childhood development with smaller staffing ratios in government pre-schools. All the revenue raised through this measure will be reinvested in early childhood development. Research by the USA's National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs found that every dollar spent supporting the development of children through quality early childhood education saves $4-$9 over the long term.

The most recent figures available from the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Border Protection show that the number of school children in South Australia with parents on a 457 Visas was 893 at 30 June 2016, 1,035 at 30 June 2015, and 1,050 at 30 June 2014. Of these, the numbers attending public versus private schools is not known, however DECD will be collecting this data in the future.

In response to the questions raised by the Hon Tammy Franks, I have been advised that the fees will be collected centrally by DECD. Initial registration of newly arrived children of 457 visa holders will be tied to the enrolment process at individual schools. Parents will be able to pay in a lump sum, or in regular instalments. Payments via salary sacrifice arrangements are also likely to be agreed with employers in many cases.

Based on the very limited number of enquiries received since this proposal was announced in March this year, the scheme is not expected to have a significant impact on the capacity for employers to attract workers on 457 visas to South Australia.

Turning to the issue of charging a fee in addition to the worker paying taxes, the costs of schooling also include previous major investments in items such as buildings, information technology, and curriculum development. This approach also mirrors the Commonwealth's stance in relation to health costs, in which most 457 visa workers are not covered by Medicare, and are required to take out private health insurance.

I will now turn to the amendments regarding land tax payable by sporting clubs contained in this bill. I will put on record the responses RevenueSA provided to the Opposition following a briefing on these measures. I have been advised of a specific example where an organisation may be eligible for an exemption as proposed in this bill. In the 2015 Squash Australia Annual Report, Squash SA indicated that it has challenged a land tax assessment with the Government of South Australia. Squash SA may be a candidate for the expanded land tax exemption included at clause 65(2) of this bill if the relevant land owned by Squash SA is not residential or vacant land and the rules or constitution of Squash SA restrict the use of its income and capital to sporting activities, including any income it may generate from non­sporting activities.

SANFL, AFL and SACA sporting associations and metro-racing associations could stand to benefit from this land tax exemption as long as the association is established for one of the eligible purposes. For sporting associations, an eligible purpose would include playing of cricket, football, tennis, golf, bowling or other athletic sports or exercises. For a racing association an eligible purpose would include horse racing, trotting, dog racing, motor racing or other similar contests. To benefit from this land tax exemption, an association would also need to have rules or a constitution that restrict the use of income and capital of the association to sporting or racing activities, including where this income is generated from non-sporting and non-racing activities (this includes a distribution on winding up of the association). Furthermore, the association would need to own land that is non-residential or non-vacant land.

I am advised that the majority of these associations may already receive a land tax exemption based on the existing provision in the Land Tax Act 1936. Based on 2015-16 land tax holdings, it is estimated that 11 associations will stand to benefit from this exemption of which nine are sporting associations and two are racing associations. It is further estimated that of the nine sporting associations which could stand to benefit, two are SANFL clubs. The Hon Mark Parnell has asked the Government to identify the racing associations that are expected to benefit from the expansion to the land tax exemption for sporting and racing bodies. I am advised by the Commissioner of State Taxation that the secrecy provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1996 prevent the Commissioner from disclosing this information.

In regards to the land tax exemption for charitable organisations contained in this bill, I am advised that RevenueSA is not aware of an example that it can provide without breaching the secrecy provision in the Taxation Administration Act 1996. However, I have been advised of the following hypothetical scenario. A is a corporate trustee, established as a proprietary limited company. A exists to hold land on trust for B which is a trust established for charitable purposes. Presently A will be denied a land tax exemption under section 4(1)(j) of the Land Tax Act 1936 on the basis that A itself is not established for a charitable purpose. The amendment at clause 65(1) of this bill will ensure that A is eligible for the land tax exemption. This is on the basis that A holds the land for B which is a charitable trust.

The Hon Mark Parnell has asked about the rationale for the extension of the off-the-plan apartment concession.

The off-the-plan concession scheme provides a stamp duty concession of up to $15,500 for contracts entered into for the purchase of an off-the­ plan apartment by 30 June 2017. The level of concession received varies depending on the value of the apartment and the stage of completion of the residential development.

The expansion of the off-the-plan concession state-wide removes the need to define an eligibility area. It is also consistent with the targets of the Government's 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide the recently released Draft Update 2016. This includes increasing infill in established urban areas and encouraging new housing in areas within proximity to current and proposed fixed line transport and high frequency bus routes, not only in the inner metro.

It will also support the creation of more affordable and diverse housing choices, important with the trend towards more single and two person households increasing the need for more units and apartments in accessible locations.

In relation to the matter raised by the Hon John Darley about the first home owner grant, I am advised that the eligibility criteria do not preclude migrants to Australia from accessing the grant. The relevant eligibility criteria for a first home owner grant includes that:

the applicant is an Australian citizen or has permanent residency in Australia

the applicant(s) or their spouse(s) must not have previously owned a residential property anywhere in Australia prior to 1 July 2000, and

the applicant(s) or their spouse(s) must not have owned a residential property anywhere in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and occupied that property continuously for six months or more.

In addition, first home owner grant assistance is not means tested other than a cap on the value of property purchased in order for an applicant to be eligible for the grant. This cap is currently $575,000 in South Australia.

Finally, I am advised that RevenueSA does not collect statistics relating to the number of grants that have been provided to people who have migrated to Australia.

The Hon Rob Lucas read into Hansard a submission received from a tax lawyer in relation to the proposed amendments to the Land Tax Act 1936, Stamp Duties Act 1923 and Taxation Administration Act 1996. The submission also included some additional commentary relating to these acts that are not directly linked to the Government's budget measures. The following sections detail the Government's responses to the matters raised in the submission.

In relation to the issues raised concerning clause 65(1) relating to the land tax exemption for charitable and other eligible bodies (paragraphs 1 to 12 of the submission read into Hansard). The Government agrees with the points raised and will move an amendment to include a definition of association in the Land Tax Act 1936 that is to apply for the purposes of section 4 of the act.

In relation to the matters raised about clause 65(2) (paragraphs 13 to 17 of the submission read into Hansard). The amendments proposed will have the effect of preserving existing land tax exemptions afforded to land used wholly or mainly for sporting or racing purposes as per the current section 4(1 )(k)(i) and (ii) of the Land Tax Act 1936. Accordingly, all bodies that currently receive a land tax exemption under those sections should continue to receive an exemption after the proposed amendments are made as long as their circumstances remain unchanged.

The amendments do, however, expand the type of land that can be exempt when owned by eligible sporting or racing bodies, consistent with the Government's policy announcement to include commercial land. However the exemption is expressly limited to non-residential and non­vacant land only. The new provisions are not expected to impose any new impediment on clubs that are establishing themselves.

In relation to queries raised regarding clause 66 (paragraphs 18 to 21 of the submission read into Hansard). The Commissioner of State Taxation is of the view that the terms renovated, rebuilt and constructing are sufficient to ensure that a land tax exemption will be available where the buildings on the land are being wholly demolished and wholly new buildings are being constructed on that land and where repairs are being undertaken.

In relation to queries raised concerning clause 90 (paragraphs 22 to 23 of the submission read into Hansard). The Commissioner of State Taxation advises me that the application of section 67 of the Stamp Duties Act 1923 will always be considered on a case by case basis taking into account the individual facts of the particular matter. However, as a general principle the test to now be applied is whether the persons are acting separately and independently.

In relation to the example provided in the submission, I am advised that the Commissioner of State Taxation is of the view that section 67 of the Stamp Duties Act 1923 would not apply and the transfers would not be aggregated for the purposes of calculating stamp duty.

In relation to the matters raised about clause 107 (paragraphs 26 to 29 of the submission read into Hansard). Ex gratia relief has been provided on a relatively regular basis to charitable and religious bodies that purchase property used solely for their purposes since at least 1997. The amendment made in 2015 simply codified this arrangement.

The Government's intent is that the exemption only applies to property purchased by (or donated to) a charitable or religious body where the property is to be used directly for the purposes of the charity or religion. The Government considers it appropriate that an exemption does not apply to land intended to be used for purely commercial purposes even if owned by a charitable or religious body and any revenue from its use is used to fund the body's charitable or religious pursuits. This is consistent with the ex gratia scheme that applied prior to the 2015 amendment.

In relation to the matter raised concerning clause 109 (paragraphs 30 to 32 of the submission read in Hansard). I advise that consistent with the statement made in the submission, the policy rationale behind requiring an amount of primary tax to be paid prior to lodging an appeal with the Supreme Court is to discourage frivolous appeals as well as to protect the State's revenue in the intervening time between when an appeal is lodged and when the Supreme Court hands down its judgment.

The current legislation was introduced in 2015 as part of the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2015) Act 2015. It came about as a result of industry representations that an alternative to the then requirement that 100 per cent of the tax in dispute be paid prior to an appeal being lodged, would be to require a proportion of the tax in dispute to be paid, such as half, rather than the entire amount. This suggestion was adopted and is considered by the Government to be a fair compromise.

With respect to matters raised at paragraph 33 to 48 of the submission read into Hansard, I advise that although these matters do not relate directly to the Government's budget commitments, the Government makes the following comments.

Dialogue is ongoing between RevenueSA and industry in relation to the issues raised at paragraphs 33 to 39 of the submission read into Hansard. The Government considers it appropriate that this consultation continue to resolve outstanding issues prior to any potential legislative solution being proposed for the Parliament's consideration.

In relation to the issues raised at paragraphs 40 to 47 of the submission read into Hansard. I can advise that it is not the Commissioner of State Taxation's normal practice to undertake tax assessments or tax reassessments that go back more than five years into the past unless there has been a deliberate tax default (as provided for at section 10(4)(b) of the Taxation Administration Act 1996), the Commissioner of State Taxation has the consent of the taxpayer (as provided for at section 10(4)(a) of the same act), or there are some other unusual circumstances that warrant such an approach being taken (for example where RevenueSA has issued a Revenue Ruling on a particular tax matter and a taxpayer has not had regard to this ruling when determining their tax obligations).

Finally, in relation to para 48 of the submission read into Hansard. Decisions to provide a remission to penalty tax and interest are at the discretion of the Commissioner of State Taxation and it is considered appropriate that these decisions are non-reviewable. However, despite being expressed as non-reviewable, any decision will always comply with rules relating to administrative decision-making, including the requirement to exercise the discretion reasonably, having regard to relevant considerations only and not to act for an improper purpose.

Regarding resource royalties, this bill contains amendments which mean the Treasurer will now be responsible for determining royalties, in consultation with the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. The administration of the royalties will still remain with the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. This change will align the Treasurer's responsibilities to be consistent with other revenue policy areas, whilst maintaining collaboration with the Minster for Mineral Resources and Energy.

Royalty rates are set by legislation and Cabinet will approve any proposed change to royalty rate settings prior to any amendments being introduced to Parliament. Other decisions requiring Ministerial approval, such as eligibility for new mine rates will be determined by the Treasurer following consultation with the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. Ongoing administrative arrangements relating to royalties—for example, late payment arrangements—will continue to be delegated to the Resource Royalties section within the Department of State Development.

This bill contains amendments to the Passenger Transport Act 1994 to allow for the reduction in the non-cash payment surcharge payable on taxi fares, from 10 per cent to no greater than 5 per cent. The Opposition has sought further details on why the surcharge would still be maintained at 5 per cent. I have been advised that the amount of 5 per cent was determined by Professor Alan Fels as part of the Victorian Taxi Inquiry for the Baillieu Government in 2011-12. The evidence before the Inquiry suggested that 5 per cent better reflects the actual resource cost of providing the service, this is detailed in Chapter 14 of the Inquiry. Taxis are exempt from the Reserve Bank administration of financial service fees as this remains the responsibility of state regulators.

The Hon Rob Lucas also asked a number of questions regarding the amendments to the Zero Waste SA Act 2004 and also about the increase in the Solid Waste Levy. The changes to the Levy paid by waste depots under section 113 of the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the solid waste levy) were made via regulations and therefore, are not contained in this bill. The Hon Rob Lucas should understand that disallowing those regulations would put at risk significant investment and jobs. The additional funding that was announced in the 2016-17 State Budget will benefit industry and local government and will provide for waste and resource recovery infrastructure, waste reform projects, new climate initiatives and disaster waste management.

I am pleased to advise the Hon. Rob Lucas that Green Industries SA will be subject to the same reporting requirements as Zero Waste SA. This includes the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, Freedom of Information Act 1991 and Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995, annual reporting in accordance with the Public Sector Act 2009 and this legislation, as well as a rolling three year published business plan approved by the Minister. The Hon Rob Lucas also asked whether Green Industries SA will be covered by the Public Corporations Act 1993. The Zero Waste SA Act 2004 established Zero Waste SA as a statutory corporation, not a public corporation, and the Public Corporations Act 1993 did not apply to Zero Waste SA. The amendments in this bill 'continue the statutory corporation Zero Waste SA as Green Industries SA', therefore the Public Corporations Act 1993 will not apply to Green Industries SA.

Where the Green Industry Fund is utilised for climate change initiatives and/or disaster waste management, approval will be required by the Minister, however this power can be delegated. The current procedures for the Board in respect of the funding allocations are maintained for the Board of Green Industries SA. The legislation proposes that the Green Industry Fund may be applied towards certain recovery measures following a major incident, major emergency or disaster, as declared under Part 4, Division 3 of the Emergency Management Act 2004. I am advised criteria for applying the Fund under this section is still to be developed and will take into account other assistance available. However, yes, the Pinery bushfire and recent extreme weather events were declared under the Emergency Management Act 2004 and provide an example of how the Fund could be applied towards the management of waste and debris or harm to the environment following these events.

The Hon Michelle Lensink also raised some questions during her second reading contribution in relation to the solid waste levy and the amendments to the Zero Waste SA Act 2004. In relation to the claims that an increase to the solid waste levy will result in increased incidents of illegal dumping, I am advised there is a lack of available data to back this up. In fact, the 2012 KPMG review of the New South Wales waste levy found that there is no conclusive evidence that links the levy to illegal dumping and that it is rather a convenience factor. I am advised illegal dumping still occurs in areas where the cost of waste disposal is low or even free.

In relation to the Hon Michelle Lensink's comments about the Waste to Resources Fund, I am informed that more than $97 million of funds have been spent since 2004 on projects and programs that have significantly reduced the amount of waste going to landfill. These initiatives have benefited the community through access to new and improved kerbside recycling systems, creation of jobs in re-processing and sorting facilities, and industry-focused programs that have resulted in less waste produced and reduced operating costs.

In the 2016-17 State Budget, the Government has committed to spending all extra funding received as a result of the increase to the solid waste levy over the next four years. It will be reinvested into waste, environmental management and climate change programs including funding initiatives to help recycle waste into more valuable commodities and accelerate new business opportunities in the resource recovery sector. A higher price on waste will incentivise councils and industry to dispose of less to landfill, as well as expand the resource recovery sector in processing and reuse. It is these initiatives that will create up to 350 jobs. I am advised similar reforms in New South Wales have seen an increase in employment and an improvement in recycling and reuse of waste. Up to July 2016, the NSW EPA estimates 845 jobs have been created from the investment of the waste levy in that State.

In relation to the Hon Michelle Lensink's questions on the Budget Papers; the scrap metal recyclers rebate recognises that there is no established alternative yet to landfill disposal for shredder floc, a by-product of metal recycling. Therefore, the Government will waive the increased levy amount over the next two years for metal recyclers, meaning they will pay $62 per tonne for that particular waste. The 'Waste Infrastructure, Investment and Innovation' item relates to grant programs being run by the Office of Green Industries SA for the waste and resource recovery industry for infrastructure investment and innovation. It does not relate to mass balance reporting, which I am advised is an option being consulted on by the EPA as part of reform considerations for the sector.

I am pleased to advise the Hon Michelle Lensink that the Government's 'Trade Waste Initiative' aims to help South Australian food and beverage manufacturers improve the way trade waste is managed, focussing on both volume reduction and quality improvement, and also helps businesses reduce costs and increase productivity by improving the way materials, energy and water are used. Funding is allocated to eligible business through competitive grant rounds, of which there are two streams:

(i) resource productivity assessments to identify economically viable options for businesses to make improvements; and

(ii) implementation grants for food and beverage manufacturers to support trade waste improvements.

Grants are offered on a one-to-one matched funding basis. No funding has been provided to SA Water for this initiative. The Government determined that the Office of Green Industries SA would deliver the program in collaboration with other government agencies (Department of State Development, Primary Industries and Regions SA, the EPA and SA Water). $5.29 million from the Waste to Resources Fund has been allocated to the Office of Green Industries SA for the program over two years. Further information on the Trade Waste Initiative can be found on the Green Industries SA website (www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au).

The Hon Michelle Lensink also asked about the application of the Green Industry Fund for disaster waste management and current insurance arrangements in that regard. I am advised that there is no formal natural disaster insurance scheme in Australia or South Australia, nor specific insurance policy that covers disaster waste management. With the exception of roads, the South Australian Government's built assets are insured at a replacement cost basis and I am advised Local Government also has property insurance for most of its built assets. As members would understand, insurance cover for households and businesses varies from policy to policy.

In the event of natural disasters, I am advised the Australian Government provides some assistance to state governments through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to partially reimburse costs to the State once certain thresholds have been reached. The State Government provides assistance to Local Government through the Local Government Disaster Recovery Assistance Guidelines and also requires certain thresholds to be reached.

While recognising that asset owners should be responsible for managing natural disaster risks to their assets, there will always be the need for alternative funding solutions to enable a timely and coordinated approach to clean-up and recovery efforts from large-scale disasters. I understand the Office of Green Industries SA is currently undertaking a project that is looking at disaster waste management contingency planning and guidance. As advised in my earlier response to the Hon Rob Lucas' questions, criteria on applying the Green Industry Fund for disaster waste management purposes is to be developed.

I acknowledge the Hon Michelle Lensink's comments about the international reputation of South Australia in waste management and resource recovery, including the Zero Waste SA brand. I am pleased to advise the bill (Clause 126) retains the agency's proprietary interest in the names Zero Waste SA and Zero Waste. I understand a recent forum on waste reduction, recycling and reuse held in Adelaide with international representatives was branded with the Office of Green Industries SA, so word is already spreading about the transition from Zero Waste SA to Green Industries SA.

The Hon John Darley also asked about re-branding in his second reading contribution. I am advised that the agency is undertaking a large amount of rebranding in-house, manages its own website and has electronic letterhead which reduces such costs. Four creative design agencies accepted an invitation to submit a new corporate identity for Green Industries SA at a cost of $1,000 (excluding GST) each, and new stationery costs (envelopes, business cards etc.) are expected to be minimal—around $1,100.

In response to Hon Michelle Lensink's questions about Clause 116 of the bill—this allows Green Industries SA to carry out its functions indirectly. I'm advised Green Industries SA will be looking to work with particular industry sectors and there may be opportunities where it is appropriate to work with an industry or representative body, rather than individual companies. For example, this amendment will allow the agency to provide a grant or loan to a representative body; who would then work with its members on the individual activities required to achieve a program's outcomes. I'm advised this would only occur under a formal agreement with measurable outcomes.

Clause 117 of the bill allows Green Industries SA to make use of certain information collected by the EPA under the Environment Protection Act 1993. For example, information provided to the EPA by licensees may be of use to Green Industries SA to show trends in waste management and resource recovery, to guide and inform waste strategies and other policy. The clause explicitly states that the information must not be used in a way that divulges trade processes or financial information, without that person or body's consent. It goes without saying that no information will be shared that may compromise an investigation or prosecution by the environmental regulator.

The Hon Michelle Lensink also asked about the inclusion of section 17(5a)—which relates to the Green Industry Fund being applied, with the approval of the Treasurer, in dealing with shares, units, securities or entering into a partnership, joint venture or other profit sharing agreement. ! am advised this clause is consistent with standard provisions that are found within other statutes—for example, the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust Act 1971, Adelaide Festival Corporation Act 1998, Art Gallery Act 1939, Carrick Hill Trust Act 1985, South Australian Country Arts Trust Act 1992 and History Trust of South Australia Act 1981 etc.

I am advised Zero Waste SA has traditionally applied monies from the Waste to Resources Fund in the form of grants and incentives. This amendment recognises that there might be opportunities where the public's money might be better utilised in the form of other commercial arrangements, rather than one-off grant expenditure. As outlined in the legislation, to apply the Fund in this way requires the Treasurer's approval. It allows Green Industries SA to enter into agreements where the funds can be used to achieve a certain objective, and are then returned to the Government for reinvestment in other programs. Commissioning and collaborating with businesses to develop the green economy are key functions of Green Industries SA and this amendment provides additional avenues to undertake this work.

Bill read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT